Search results

The evolution of capitalism has gone through four major epochs, from the first tangible exchanges of goods and resources, to the generation of wealth by entrepreneurs held personally accountable for their actions, to cost-cutting measures for increasing efficiencies and maximizing wealth for the few, and finally to a socially irresponsible form. The fourth epoch dispatched the last remaining shards of capitalist responsibility to anyone but investors, as the basis of wealth appropriation shifted to manipulating the speculative future worth of intangible or fictitious capital. This evolution through four epochs has sadly been a process of diminishing value creation (Boje et al., 2017).

We are trapped in an era of socially irresponsible capitalism with little respect for humankind. But, it was not always this way. The earliest references to entrepreneurial behavior emerged in the east during the Han Dynasty and in the west in the eighteenth century. Somewhat like the fourth epoch of the twenty-first century, these global beginnings of early capitalism were also directed by opportunistic desires to pursue wealth generation by taking advantage of people’s needs and wants. Although capitalists have consistently been the prime directors of resources and the distributors of wealth, in the early epochs of capitalism they were different. The early epoch entrepreneurs bore personal risks of business failure, consequences that might impact them for a lifetime.

The antenarrative generative mechanisms, or spirals, help us understand the interconnectivities of “real” and “actual” domains of reality (Bhaskar, 1975; Boje, 2016). Socially irresponsible capitalism is pulling global societies into a downward spiral toward an addiction of speculative destruction and dehumanization, transforming “real” into “actual” realities. We need a force to pull us back up toward a revitalized form of socially responsible capitalism. This force is called the socio-economic approach to management (SEAM), and in the responsible entrepreneurial spirit of earlier epochs, the path to recovery can be accomplished by accountably working with one organization or entity at a time.

This chapter first investigates the historical double-spiral-helix footsteps of socially irresponsible capitalism in the making. Then through a SEAM project example, we discuss how the micro-societal perspective of an organization places it at a deeper level of reality, deeper within the double-spiral-helix meta-reality of macro-societal capitalism. Finally, we demonstrate how the socioeconomic approach can help diagnose the deeper realities with an organization, beyond the evident narratives, to reveal the third spiral of deficiencies. This third spiral disenables the organization’s ability to activate the micro forces of socially responsible capitalism.

This paper aims to investigate the extent to which the ideology of shareholder value is compatible with that of transformative corporate social responsibility (CSR). It traces the transformation of corporations from quasi-public institutions at inception to purely private enterprises beginning from the middle of the nineteenth century and attempts to locate the ideology of CSR within the wider viewpoint of shareholder value.

This paper adopts a doctrinal approach through a critical evaluation of the nature and implications of the shareholder value ideology. Using existing literature in the area, it traces the evolution of the shareholder value ideology and how it is antithetical to any meaningful CSR regime.

The paper finds that there is a fundamental tension between ideas about the desirability of effective CSR and the belief that it is to the benefit of society as a whole for corporations to be run solely in the interest of their shareholders and for managers to seek to maximize shareholder value. This ideological tension renders contemporary CSR ineffective.

The paper offers a fresh insight or analysis into the transformation of corporations from quasi-social institutions to purely private enterprises in the middle of the nineteenth century. It does this by engaging in a historical narrative of the evolution of the corporate form and how contemporary ideas of shareholder value have resulted in the emergence of a contemporary CSR devoid of the radical spirit of CSR in the 1950s and 1960s.

Socially responsible behaviour is increasingly demanded of both individuals and organisations as ever more information on the negative side‐effects of economic activity emerges. The two main areas of concern are sustainability (environment) and social justice (accountability). Monitoring and influencing the behaviour or organisations and their managers requires access to sufficient, high‐quality information. Quality of information can be summed up in the degree of transparency it has, from clear to opaque. Accountancy is the profession most involved in the production of financial information. Information technology has had a profound effect on the accountancy profession and on the rules which determine how financial information is produced. The rules are already highly complex but they would need to be changed further to address the concerns of sustainability and social justice. Unless these concerns are addressed Socially Responsible Capitalism will elude us, with potentially disastrous consequences for us all. Even if the accountancy rules are expanded successfully, it will still be essential that individuals educate themselves so that they can successfully challenge organisations about their behaviour, and influence them to behave responsibly.

The objective of this paper is to raise questions and contribute to discourse around the topic of socially responsible capitalism with specific reference to the need for a considered approach between the necessity to foster an entrepreneurial risk taking environment to create a vibrant economy and the need for a balanced yet rigorous regulatory environment. The paper specifically addresses the pro‐active role that academia should be encouraged to play in advising government and stake holders as to how to achieve the optimum position.

The address juxtaposed personal insights and observations drawn from many years as an international businessman with my analysis of the events of the past 75 years (from the great depression to the current credit crises) together with legislation such as, The Glass Steagall Act 1933; The Securities Act 1933; The securities Exchange act 1934; The Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 and The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1997.

A 30‐minute question and answer session followed the address and allowed for extensive discussion and feedback from the audience. Certain members of the audience continued this discussion and feedback via email.

The Q&A evidenced that the address was considered a catalyst for possible new directions with regard to the topic and presented original ideas within the context of the objectives outlined above.

Reviews the development of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) concept and its four components: economic, legal, ethical and altruistic duties. Discusses different perspectives on the proper role of business in society, from profit making to community service provider. Suggests that much of the confusion and controversy over CSR stem from a failure to distinguish among ethical, altruistic and strategic forms of CSR. On the basis of a thorough examination of the arguments for and against altruistic CSR, concurs with Milton Friedman that altruistic CSR is not a legitimate role of business. Proposes that ethical CSR, grounded in the concept of ethical duties and responsibilities, is mandatory. Concludes that strategic CSR is good for business and society. Advises that marketing take a lead role in strategic CSR activities. Notes difficulties in CSR practice and offers suggestions for marketers in planning for strategic CSR and for academic researchers in further clarifying the boundaries of strategic CSR.

In this chapter we develop sustainability implications of the Savall, Zardet, Bonett, and colleagues’ approach, known worldwide as socioeconomic approach to management (SEAM). SEAM can be used as a way of doing management and organizational inquiry into the ecological sustainability of practices with planetary boundaries. We conclude that a socially responsible approach to management needs to consider the hidden costs to an enterprise if it is not being sustainable to planetary resource limits.

This paper aims to examine the nature and role of contemporary CSR in the current neoliberal age. It offers an insight into the tension that exists between the ideologies of “neoliberal” shareholder value and that of “effective” CSR, and argues that both ideologies are fundamentally antithetical. It aims to identify and analyse the inter-connected but distinguishable barriers (ideological, practical and political) that militate against the realization of effective CSR.

The method applied is a critical evaluation of concepts and a thorough review of existing literature on neoliberalism, shareholder value and contemporary CSR. It uses existing literature to highlight the inability of contemporary CSR to transform into an effective mechanism for development.

The paper emphasizes the failure of contemporary CSR to equate to a successful mechanism for development. It concludes that the existence and operations of these barriers militate against the realization of an effective CSR regime capable of leading to development.

Given the current dominance of the “maximizing shareholder value” model of corporate governance internationally, it appears unreasonable to pin too much hope on contemporary CSR as a mechanism for development, especially in emerging economies. Neither the culture of corporations nor the pressures to which they are currently subjected encourage socially responsible behaviour.

The paper extends the body of knowledge in the area of contemporary CSR, by identifying and analysing the inter-connected but distinguishable barriers that render the CSR practices of corporations ineffective.

Describes some of the shortcomings of the traditional approaches to business ethics in organizations, posing the question “Can capitalism co‐exist with social concern?” Discusses social responsibility as successful business practice, rather than nice‐to‐do irrelevance in business. Outlines how quality assurance disciplines can readily apply to organizational efforts in social responsibility. Concludes with a ten‐point checklist, “the ten Cs of concerned capitalism” for people in organizations to consider and apply.

This chapter presents a case study involving a socio-economic Organizational Development (OD) project carried out in a European subsidiary of a large multinational corporation traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This research case study, one of the 1,854 socio-economic interventions undertaken by the ISEOR research center, was chosen for its good illustration of the OD engineering process. It connects the dots between OD and financial performance, between immediate results and the creation of potential. We look at some of the tools and methods, such as overhauling loss and profit accounts and balance sheets with an eye on socio-economic balance, to illustrate socioeconomic tools at work and how they help enhance compatibility between the objectives of all stakeholders, including shareholders. With this case study, we also set out to provide food for thought on the contribution of socio-economic OD to the construction of socially responsible capitalism (Savall et al., 2015).